On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 6:54 PM, decibel <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Would it? Risk seems like it would just be something along the lines of
>>> the high-end of our estimate. I don't think confidence should be that hard
>>> either. IE: hard-coded guesses have a low confidence. Something pulled right
>>> out of most_common_vals has a high confidence.
>
>
> I wouldn't be so sure of that. I've run into cases where all of the
> frequencies pulled out of most_common_vals are off by orders of magnitude.
> The problem is that if ANALYZE only samples 1/1000th of the table, and it
> sees a value twice, it assumes the value is present 2000 times in the table,
> even when it was only in the table twice. Now, for any given value that
> occurs twice in the table, it is very unlikely for both of those to end up
> in the sample. But when you have millions of distinct values which each
> occur twice (or some low number of time), it is a near certainty that
> several of them are going to end with both instances in the sample. Those
> few ones that get "lucky" are of course going to end up in the
> most_common_vals list.
Especially if there's some locality of occurrence, since analyze
samples pages, not rows.